kids backpacks justice image
Therapist
WOW! I am suprised at how many moms do not! My boys do and we have similar rules as the rest. My husband goes hunting so .... how can I not? Moms that don't let your children, don't they use other things and 'pretend?' My son builds them out of legos and empty wrapping paper tubes and he has guns...
Answer
Good for you! I see nothing wrong with playing with toy guns.
Here's an excerpt from a short story I wrote that presents my feelings on the subject. Thank you for being a good mom.
Epilogue
Between the late nineteen-forties and early nineteen-sixties there were over one hundred and twenty westerns on television. Today there is only one, thanks in part to the cable networks which have opened many other avenues for writers and producers to aire their work. Of all those shows I remember only a handful. My favorites were 'Gunsmoke', and 'Maverick', but I also remember fondly many of the westerns produced by Warner Brothers that aired on the ABC network. A list of them, and a few others, follows this epilogue.
To say that those shows greatly influenced me, and the person I became, would be an understatement. Although my great-grandparents, particularly Big Dick, played a major role in the development of my personal integrity, those television shows contributed as well. As television in those days was black and white, so were the
characters. You always knew who the bad guys and the good guys were. There was no ambiguity, and even though you knew Bret Maverick would rather play poker than fight, you also knew that when the chips were down he would always do the right thing. That was true of all the other marshals, sheriffs, deputies, rangers, drifters and other heroes that rode or ambled or moseyed across the small screen. You could be sure that by the time the last commercial was over, the bad guys had all been killed, hanged or punished according to the Law Of The West, and that the good guys would ride back next week to bring yet more villains to justice.
Does anyone today give or buy toy guns for their children? In this age of political correctness, where a policy of zero tolerance allows school officials to expel children for having an aspirin in their backpacks, or for carrying a key chain that is an inch too long and violates some mindless, arbitrary policy? I doubt it! Or does anyone really care that personal integrity is routinely bartered for political, social, or economic gain? I doubt that also.
It seems to be okay for kids to play computer games more violent than any backyard game we played as cowboys and indians, or westerns we watched. Is a cap pistol that produces a short pop and a puff of smoke, so different, so much more dangerous than a mouse or joystick, that with the push of a button sprays gallons of vivid, virtual blood and guts all over a nineteen inch monitor or fifty-five inch, high definition plasma television screen?
If I had kids today, I would give them cap guns and cowboy clothes and send them to play in the back yard, and lock up the computer hardware and software. It would provide them with better exercise and improve their imaginations.
Good for you! I see nothing wrong with playing with toy guns.
Here's an excerpt from a short story I wrote that presents my feelings on the subject. Thank you for being a good mom.
Epilogue
Between the late nineteen-forties and early nineteen-sixties there were over one hundred and twenty westerns on television. Today there is only one, thanks in part to the cable networks which have opened many other avenues for writers and producers to aire their work. Of all those shows I remember only a handful. My favorites were 'Gunsmoke', and 'Maverick', but I also remember fondly many of the westerns produced by Warner Brothers that aired on the ABC network. A list of them, and a few others, follows this epilogue.
To say that those shows greatly influenced me, and the person I became, would be an understatement. Although my great-grandparents, particularly Big Dick, played a major role in the development of my personal integrity, those television shows contributed as well. As television in those days was black and white, so were the
characters. You always knew who the bad guys and the good guys were. There was no ambiguity, and even though you knew Bret Maverick would rather play poker than fight, you also knew that when the chips were down he would always do the right thing. That was true of all the other marshals, sheriffs, deputies, rangers, drifters and other heroes that rode or ambled or moseyed across the small screen. You could be sure that by the time the last commercial was over, the bad guys had all been killed, hanged or punished according to the Law Of The West, and that the good guys would ride back next week to bring yet more villains to justice.
Does anyone today give or buy toy guns for their children? In this age of political correctness, where a policy of zero tolerance allows school officials to expel children for having an aspirin in their backpacks, or for carrying a key chain that is an inch too long and violates some mindless, arbitrary policy? I doubt it! Or does anyone really care that personal integrity is routinely bartered for political, social, or economic gain? I doubt that also.
It seems to be okay for kids to play computer games more violent than any backyard game we played as cowboys and indians, or westerns we watched. Is a cap pistol that produces a short pop and a puff of smoke, so different, so much more dangerous than a mouse or joystick, that with the push of a button sprays gallons of vivid, virtual blood and guts all over a nineteen inch monitor or fifty-five inch, high definition plasma television screen?
If I had kids today, I would give them cap guns and cowboy clothes and send them to play in the back yard, and lock up the computer hardware and software. It would provide them with better exercise and improve their imaginations.
New bulletproof backpacks: would you buy one?
deckels
Here's an article about two Boston dads who invented (and are selling) a $175 backpack with bulletproof metallic insert to keep their kids safe at school. A good investment?
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1016084
Answer
Buying this product would be a horrible idea.
You'd be benefiting a greedy manufacturer who intends to exploit the fear of parents by selling a product of questionable utility.
How can the armor material be a 'secret' and also meet NIJ standards? It's unlikely to have passed NIJ testing since there's no mention of 'MJ Safety Solutions' or âMy Childâs Packâ in the database of tested products. NIJ has several standards in different areas a reputable firm would have specified the standard met and the independent testing agency that verified compliance. Even if they do show compliance with some NIJ standards, how are these standards applicable for a kid using this product?
The examples, comparisons, and quotes used in the article are disturbing and misleading.
âWe have tested and tested this product and we are very excited about it. We researched every school shooting since 1900 and found that our product is resistant to 97 percent of all bullets used,âResistant to 97% of all bullets used in school shootings is a long way from showing that this product would have saved any lives in those school shootings.
The backpacks werenât due to go on sale until the start of the school year but Pelonzi brought the release date forward to Friday, days after a Herald review revealed how more than 500 weapons were recovered from Bostonâs public schools in the past year.
Clearly Pelonzi sees the benefit of using fear to sell his product.
The backpacks, which will cost $175, have a super-lightweight bullet-proof plate sewn into the back which weighs no more than a bottle of water. Pelonzi said the material used is a secret.
The plate material meets National Institute of Justice safety standards, said Pelonzi, and during a three-year testing phase, stood up to bullets as well as machete, hatchet and Ka-bar knife attacks.
In this and other articles Pelonzi is trying to both claim his armor is light in weight and offers the same protection as a police officer's body armor. This is especially apparent in other articles where he compares the weight of police body armor to the backpack without acknowledging the greater coverage provided by police vests.
Think of how kids carry backpacks. How much protection will this thing provide slung over one shoulder? Even worn on both shoulders it would provide poor protection in a close-quarters gun fight. Is Pelonzi willing to demonstrate his product under those conditions? Let's see a video of test dummies optimally protected with backpacks being fired on by a single shooter. Even if you restrict the shooter to a fixed position and give him a limited time he'll likely do some serious damage to these poorly protected students.
âIt seems to me that it would not serve our district-wide dress code which says that students cannot wear anything which is threatening or offensive,â said Jonathan Palumbo, Boston Public Schools spokesman.
Palumbo's argument seems lame at first glance, what's offensive or threatening about an armored backpack? Isn't it purely defensive? The point he's making is a good one, a student with this backpack might feel sufficiently protected to confront a gunman and escalate a potentially violent situation that might have been brought under control by trained authorities.
My primary concern about this product is the false sense of security it provides students and their parents. A student would require a great deal of training and practice to make any use of this as a protective device. I suggest that time would be better spent educating students how to react to these situations safely without limited body armor. I wouldn't want any kid deciding to rely on this type of protection. I'd rather they acted smart and retreated in a safe fashion.
Buying this product would be a horrible idea.
You'd be benefiting a greedy manufacturer who intends to exploit the fear of parents by selling a product of questionable utility.
How can the armor material be a 'secret' and also meet NIJ standards? It's unlikely to have passed NIJ testing since there's no mention of 'MJ Safety Solutions' or âMy Childâs Packâ in the database of tested products. NIJ has several standards in different areas a reputable firm would have specified the standard met and the independent testing agency that verified compliance. Even if they do show compliance with some NIJ standards, how are these standards applicable for a kid using this product?
The examples, comparisons, and quotes used in the article are disturbing and misleading.
âWe have tested and tested this product and we are very excited about it. We researched every school shooting since 1900 and found that our product is resistant to 97 percent of all bullets used,âResistant to 97% of all bullets used in school shootings is a long way from showing that this product would have saved any lives in those school shootings.
The backpacks werenât due to go on sale until the start of the school year but Pelonzi brought the release date forward to Friday, days after a Herald review revealed how more than 500 weapons were recovered from Bostonâs public schools in the past year.
Clearly Pelonzi sees the benefit of using fear to sell his product.
The backpacks, which will cost $175, have a super-lightweight bullet-proof plate sewn into the back which weighs no more than a bottle of water. Pelonzi said the material used is a secret.
The plate material meets National Institute of Justice safety standards, said Pelonzi, and during a three-year testing phase, stood up to bullets as well as machete, hatchet and Ka-bar knife attacks.
In this and other articles Pelonzi is trying to both claim his armor is light in weight and offers the same protection as a police officer's body armor. This is especially apparent in other articles where he compares the weight of police body armor to the backpack without acknowledging the greater coverage provided by police vests.
Think of how kids carry backpacks. How much protection will this thing provide slung over one shoulder? Even worn on both shoulders it would provide poor protection in a close-quarters gun fight. Is Pelonzi willing to demonstrate his product under those conditions? Let's see a video of test dummies optimally protected with backpacks being fired on by a single shooter. Even if you restrict the shooter to a fixed position and give him a limited time he'll likely do some serious damage to these poorly protected students.
âIt seems to me that it would not serve our district-wide dress code which says that students cannot wear anything which is threatening or offensive,â said Jonathan Palumbo, Boston Public Schools spokesman.
Palumbo's argument seems lame at first glance, what's offensive or threatening about an armored backpack? Isn't it purely defensive? The point he's making is a good one, a student with this backpack might feel sufficiently protected to confront a gunman and escalate a potentially violent situation that might have been brought under control by trained authorities.
My primary concern about this product is the false sense of security it provides students and their parents. A student would require a great deal of training and practice to make any use of this as a protective device. I suggest that time would be better spent educating students how to react to these situations safely without limited body armor. I wouldn't want any kid deciding to rely on this type of protection. I'd rather they acted smart and retreated in a safe fashion.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Do you let your children play with TOY guns? If so what are your rules?
Rating: 95% based on 981 ratings. 4,6 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 95% based on 981 ratings. 4,6 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment